Bitcoin faces ‘Q‑Day’ risk if quantum threat isn’t patched by 2026–2028

By 2028, Bitcoin could face serious security and price pressure if it fails to adopt quantum‑resistant cryptography, with Charles Edwards warning delays past 2026 risk a prolonged bear market and confidence shock.​

Bitcoin could face significant price pressure if cryptographic upgrades are delayed to address emerging quantum computing threats, according to warnings from industry participants, as financial institutions accelerate adoption of post-quantum encryption standards.

Charles Edwards, founder of quantitative Bitcoin and digital asset fund Capriole, stated in a post on social media platform X on Wednesday that quantum risk could become critical by 2028. Edwards argued that Bitcoin must achieve quantum resistance within that timeframe to avoid severe consequences for security and price stability.

Bitcoin’s quantum questions linger

The concern centers on quantum computing’s potential ability to break widely used cryptographic systems. For Bitcoin, this could expose private keys linked to public addresses, allowing attackers to access funds or compromise data, according to technical assessments.

Edwards linked the technical challenge to market behavior, warning that failure to deploy a solution by 2028 could result in Bitcoin trading below recent levels and remaining under pressure until the issue is resolved. He indicated that an effective quantum patch would need to be implemented by 2026 to avoid destabilizing the network, according to his statements.

Delays beyond that point could trigger a prolonged bear market driven by eroding confidence, Edwards stated. He suggested that meaningful action would likely occur only after a significant market downturn forces the issue.

Some observers argue that quantum technology remains too immature to pose a near-term risk, noting that banks, governments, and large institutions would likely be targeted first, providing Bitcoin time to adapt.

Edwards disputed this view, arguing that Bitcoin could be an early target due to its design characteristics. He noted that many banks and institutions are already migrating toward post-quantum encryption standards, while Bitcoin continues to rely on existing cryptographic assumptions. He also pointed out that fraudulent transactions in traditional finance can often be reversed or blocked, whereas Bitcoin transactions are irreversible once confirmed, potentially increasing the impact of any breach.

Views across the cryptocurrency ecosystem remain divided on the urgency of the quantum threat to Bitcoin. Some participants argue that interim measures already exist to reduce exposure over the next several years, allowing time for more comprehensive protocol-level upgrades to be designed and implemented.

Others maintain that quantum computing remains too underdeveloped to pose a meaningful risk to Bitcoin’s cryptography, viewing heightened concern as premature. The contrasting positions reflect unresolved tensions within the Bitcoin community regarding the timeline and necessity of cryptographic upgrades.